Here you can discuss differences in belief between different denominations, or other religions and Christianity. This is an informational forum. Always be courteous and polite, and respect other people's views and values.<P>Permanent Residents may only reply to posts here; Native Residents may initiate & reply to posts here.

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

Once again, the current administration is trampling on the Constitution, specifically our First Amendment freedoms of speech. The Constitution in no way protects any group from "inflammatory" speech of individuals. Almost every expressed opinion could be considered "inflammatory" to someone. What we are protected from is "defamation of character", "libel" and "slander" which are not a "civil right" but is generally considered the Law of the Land and which must contain malice and damage.

SON-cerely, Nathan PowersGet exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.

After reading the last line about knees and shoulders must be covered, It seems strange that all three clearly female figures 1,2,&4 have exposed shoulders and #2 probably has exposed knees if not all three of them. The third figure seems a bit androgenous. From what I unserstand of islamic modesty requirements men must be covered from above the knees up onto the lower abdomen, Thighs and loins, much as required of the priest's undergarments

Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

From which I suspect that Mohammed probably got the idea, directly or by a more circuitous route.

If the poster is showing what to wear it seems inconsistent with the wording.If it is showing what not to wear then what is the problem with #3? and also the poster would then seem to constitute a pornographic picture. Perhaps it is a poor translation and they meant to say "from knees to shoulders".

I do not find it threatening that the Quatari government should have such a law in their own country, and it is a courtesy that they have made such a poster, but if muslims want to enforce such a law as part of sharia law on us, they simply have no such business. I have heard of young Muslims attacking persons (mostly women) that they did not consider adequately attired in Australia.

the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

If by that statement the Justice department means inflammatory in the sense of inciting riot against Muslims or death threats for Muslims as a whole, there might be cause for such a statement. The reasonable concern however is that they couched it in such language so they could claim that they did not mean curtailment of free speech contrary of the constitution.

The problem is that Muslims regard as inflammatory anything that criticizes their religion or prophet. If someone says that Muhammed was a paedophile because of his relationship to Aisha, and would be prosecuted if he did such a thing in the U.S., that is simply truth. It has already happened among Kurdish immigrants in Lincoln Nebraska in the 1990's(?) when some young Kurdish men married Kurdish girls who were in the 7th grade(?). It was permissible in their culture but paedophilia in the U.S.

However I think the track record of the current administration leaves generous room for understanding them to mean that they will infringe on the freedom of speech with lawsuits that the accused might win but it will cost them dearly and hopefully chill the owners of the social media from allowing such speech lest they have to face an expensive trial. Chicago thug politics (aka government bullying) has been a hallmark of this administration.

A recent commentator has criticized the current administration for its choice of Attorney General. As the commentator said, it is the job of the Attorney General to "Speak Truth to Power", or in other words tell the president what he cannot do. Further, a president should never choose a friend for that post but rather someone who is squeaky clean and will tell the president what he needs to hear not what he wants.Instead we seem to have an A.G. who sees his job as one of figuring out how to distort the law to accommodate the president and his agenda.

So I suspect that the D.O.J. statement about inflammatory speech against Muslims is another piece of political correct thug talk. Trying to make Muslims out to be a race so that racial discrimination laws can be applied to give them undue protections is hogwash. Muslims merely constitute another one of the world's religious "isms" and they must be allowed religious tolerance but that does not grant them the right to create their own ghetto's where they enforce sharia on those not of their faith or apostates from Islam.